Now we're interrogating the definition of "dominated the entire tour for periods of time". If your definition prevails, ie. winning all four slams, then yes, only Laver. That was not my definition, because it would be too exclusive and therefore not much help. I was also not saying Nadal had won every tournament and every match, because obviously that would exclude every case in history. I was using Federer's 2006, in which he beat everyone except Nadal, who he couldn't beat even once, and Murray, who, IIRC, he managed one victory and one loss. The latter matchup was obviously inconclusive, but the 0-5 against Nadal isn't.
I'm saying that Nadal went through a few seasons, such as 2008, 2010, and 2013, where no one player was good enough to consistently beat him, and he gobbled up a large number of trophies. Calling that back to the original point about definitions, I think that's a bit more inclusive than the one you chose. That would also include such seasons and McEnroe's 1984, Djokovic's 2011 and 2015, and Connors' 1974, which would immediately come to mind, amongst no doubt, numerous others. Notice that it doesn't matter too much to me that Federer managed the victory over Djokovic at RG in 2011, because IIRC, Djokovic beat Federer numerous other times that season, which sets that matchup apart from Federer's record vs. Nadal in 2006.